How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: Bruce on 22 Jun 2010 05:44 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:14:20 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: > >George, did you listen to one too many hours of Limbaugh this morning? John >has a point of view, and he's not afraid to express it; but he's NOT the P$S >Troll! Navas may not be "The P&S Troll" but he is definitely "a p&s troll".
From: Bruce on 22 Jun 2010 05:46 On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:23:41 -0400, krishnananda <krishna(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote: > >And on topic, the fastest and easiest way to identify a rank amateur is >anyone who says/writes "A 12mm on FF is not a street lens." Agree 100%.
From: Bruce on 22 Jun 2010 05:47 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:33:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 21, 2:19�pm, "/dev/null/" <d...(a)null.invalid> wrote: >> Your point is moot, neither Panasonic or Olympus are pro cameras. > >At some point in the near future, pro will no longer always include >bulk. So you agree that small senor P&S camera have something to offer the professional? ;-)
From: David J. Littleboy on 22 Jun 2010 05:52 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6j1126pt6b2dnaahehgc953lb583uuhi0i(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:23:41 -0400, krishnananda > <krishna(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote: >> >>And on topic, the fastest and easiest way to identify a rank amateur is >>anyone who says/writes "A 12mm on FF is not a street lens." > > > Agree 100%. 12mm on FF is a great street lens for, say, gaslit streets at 4:00am in the snow. That is, except for the problem of snow collecting on the lens... http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/112742731/large -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
From: SMS on 22 Jun 2010 06:44
RichA wrote: > The original poster is a rank amateur. He argues against a point made > later in the thread in favour of the 7-14mm Panasonic versus the > 9-18mm Olympus. The Panasonic is an enthusiast, even a pro lens. The > Olympus is a kit lens. This is true. The Panasonic 7-14mm (14-28mm) costs $1200, the Olympus 7-14mm costs $1450. The Olympus 9-18mm (18-36mm) costs $475. The 9-18mm was brought out because Olympus desperately needed a low-end, low-cost, wide angle lens for Micro four-thirds (which, in general, is a system that only rank amateurs would ever consider). Canon has the excellent 10-22mm (16-35mm) for around $700, and Nikon has the 12-24mm (18-36mm) for around $1000. The Canon is the best quality extreme wide-angle lens of the three, and the best deal (I ended up getting mine for around $600 on sale). Even Nikon aficionado Ken Rockwell concedes that the Canon extreme wide-angle lens is very high quality, offering L quality optics at not much more than a non-L price (since you can't use that EF-s lens on a high end Canon body, it's safe for Canon to offer it for their consumer level, APS-C frame size, D-SLRs). Rockwell writes: "The Canon 10-22mm has much less distortion than any wide zoom I've tested, which means it's much better than my Nikon 12-24mm., much better then the Tamron 11-18mm, much better than the Tokina 12-24mm and much better than the Sigma 10-20mm, period. No contest: compare the numbers in my wide digital zoom comparison. It's also much better than the Canon 17-40mm L and 16-35mm L used on full frame digital and film cameras. Bravo!" When you select a D-SLR body it's important to remember than you're making a long-term commitment to a specific manufacturer and that will be very expensive to make a change. Spending $500-750 more for an extreme wide-angle zoom, an extremely useful lens, is one good reason to not go the Micro four-thirds (or Nikon) route. Of course you cannot get anywhere close to 14mm or 16mm or 18mm at the wide end with a point and shoot camera where 24mm to 28mm is considered wide angle. |